The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 remanded CBP's finding that importer Fedmet Resources Corp. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China. Judge M. Miller Baker held that the Commerce Department, in a scope referral, erred in relying on its test finding goods to be covered by the orders if they are at least 5% made with alumina, since a court previously found the orders to not cover magnesia carbon bricks made with any added alumina. Baker said it's unclear if Commerce would have reached the same conclusion if it used the "benchmark of any added alumina."
The Commerce Department adequately explained its finding that it had sufficient industry support to launch the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 10. After previously remanding the issue, Judge Claire Kelly held that the agency sufficiently addressed evidence contrary to its conclusion.
The U.S. on Dec. 9 sought default judgment at the Court of International Trade against importer Rago Tires in its customs penalty suit against the company for failing to pay antidumping and countervailing duties on truck and bus tires from China. The government brought the suit in February, alleging that Rago was grossly negligent in avoiding the AD/CVD (see 2402210061). The U.S. said it served the company's "principal and registered agent" a copy of the summons and complaint but has received no response. As a result, since the deadline to respond has lapsed, the government requested default judgment of $56,435.48 for the gross negligence claim (United States v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).
The U.S. defended the Commerce Department’s controversial enforcement of strict deadlines in another case Dec. 5, saying that the missed Dec. 26, 2022, deadline had been “clearly stated” by Commerce and acknowledged by the exporter (Jindal Poly Films v. U.S., CIT # 24-00053).
In a Dec. 3 motion for judgment before the Court of International Trade, domestic producer Edsal Manufacturing again (see 2407120060) said that the Commerce Department should have used the more comparable surrogate it suggested in an antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelves from Thailand (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).
The government's cause of action against a surety runs from the date the surety breached the demand for payment on a customs bond and not from the date of liquidation, or deemed liquidation, of the underlying entries covered by the bond, the U.S. argued. Filing a cross-motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 9, the U.S. said it timely filed its case because the suit was brought within six years from the date surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. was delinquent on an over $100,000 bill for unpaid duties (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Dec. 10 sustained the Commerce Department's calculation of industry support in deciding to open the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia. After remanding the issue for Commerce to address potential double counting in its calculation, Judge Claire Kelly said the agency sufficiently addressed contrary evidence in finding there to be enough domestic support to launch the proceedings. The judge also said importers led by Tenaris Bay City failed to administratively exhaust more specific claims regarding potential undercounting and commingling of the producers and processors in the industry support data used by Commerce.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Surety firm American Alternative Insurance Corp. filed a cross-claim in a customs penalty suit brought by the U.S. against importer Repwire, its manager Jose Pigna and the surety. On Dec. 9, American Alternative Insurance told the Court of International Trade that Repwire and Pigna should be compelled to pay the over $13 million penalty and that the company and its manager "are obligated to indemnify" the insurance company for the amount of duties and fees being demanded (United States v. Repwire, CIT # 24-00173).
Importer Fine Emeralds will get refunds for duties paid on its rough, unworked emerald stones, the company announced in a stipulated judgment filed on Dec. 9 at the Court of International Trade. While the emeralds were assessed 10.5% duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7103.10.40, the government agreed to classify the products under subheading 7103.10.20, free of duty. Fine Emeralds' preferred subheading covers uncorked precious stones (Fine Emeralds v. U.S., CIT # 20-03928).